A Call for Reason

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
If Dave was referring to me and not Capt.Daniel Hunter when he said there was parity emerging with Calguard's views, I should point out that, while I agree with a lot of the points Cal makes about the nature of war and the job of a soldier, I still disagree on the fundamental point about use of force. Until there's a lot more evidence about the things Bush is slamming Saddam over, I really don't think a preemptive strike is warranted.

---

Basically what he said :D

I am very much undecided on this whole thing. But I would say I really don't know enough about the situation to have a truly informed opinion one way or the other.

I have to say that I agree that there isn't sufficient NEW information to justify an attack, ie: if one doesn't include the past.

However, taken as a whole I think the US is more than justified in removing this thorn from our side. If he's dangerous enough for us to expend so many resources to keep a lid on, if he requires a 24 hour combat air patrol over his country... then he is dangerous enough to justify elimination.

Furthermore, it is my position that Iraq is in violation of their cease-fire agreement, and have been for years. Violation of a cease-ifre is more than adequate justification for resumption of hostilities... therefore the US needs no further or new justification.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
If Dave was referring to me and not Capt.Daniel Hunter when he said there was parity emerging with Calguard's views, I should point out that, while I agree with a lot of the points Cal makes about the nature of war and the job of a soldier, I still disagree on the fundamental point about use of force. Until there's a lot more evidence about the things Bush is slamming Saddam over, I really don't think a preemptive strike is warranted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by calguard66
However, taken as a whole I think the US is more than justified in removing this thorn from our side. If he's dangerous enough for us to expend so many resources to keep a lid on, if he requires a 24 hour combat air patrol over his country... then he is dangerous enough to justify elimination.

---

If we are to remove this thorn, what of others? Where are we to stop? Has anyone called for an invasion of Libya recently? North Korea? Iran? The Philippines? We also seem quite content to leave Pakistan alone despite a military dictatorship just because the dictator is playing ball with us.

Iraq appears to be an excruciatingly low-priority target in the "War on Terrorism" (tm). That nation has not been connected with the 9-11 attacks, which I assumed would be our first priority as a nation. Instead we appear to be heading towards conflict with them because it is convenient at the moment. We decry Saddam for not having a democractic government while we back Pakistan, even though Musharraf has made a mockery of that nation's constitution. We applaud freedom for the Kurds and talk about right of self-determination for them as a people, as long as this self-determination stops at the Iraqi border and does not affect Turkey. We implicate Iraq in potential acts of terrorism when bin Laden and most of the hijackers of 9-11 came from Saudia Arabia.

These sound like the posturings of a hypocritical nation.

Posted by Ramage:

Quote:

---

If we are to remove this thorn, what of others? Where are we to stop? Has anyone called for an invasion of Libya recently? North Korea? Iran? The Philippines? We also seem quite content to leave Pakistan alone despite a military dictatorship just because the dictator is playing ball with us.

---

It would be foolish to tackle every single state which sponsors terrorism at one time. All the countries you mention do sponsor their share of terrorism or have in the past, but look at them more closely. North Korea is literally collapsing by itself and the only thing keeping the regime going is their neighbor China; you want to risk pissing off 1.3 Billion people? Didn't think so. Libya has changed somewhat in recent years, they tossed out terrorists (who fled mostly to Iraq, people like Abu Nidal) and has shown interest in paying back Lockerbie victims. Iranian Pasdaran did finance a alot of terrorism in its time and still does today, but why should we attack them both at the same time? By attacking Iraq, Iran may comply out of fear. And by the way, its also playing ball with us, they refused to return 100 planes that Iraq entrusted to them during the Gulf War. The Phillipines cooperated with the U.S. fully by allowing them to train their people to deal with local terrorists.
As for Pakistan, I personnally feel we should have used India and squashed Pakistan, but barring that he is someone who "knows" when to give in to foreign demands.

Posted by Ramage:

Quote:

---

Iraq appears to be an excruciatingly low-priority target in the "War on Terrorism" (tm). That nation has not been connected with the 9-11 attacks, which I assumed would be our first priority as a nation. Instead we appear to be heading towards conflict with them because it is convenient at the moment. We decry Saddam for not having a democractic government while we back Pakistan, even though Musharraf has made a mockery of that nation's constitution. We applaud freedom for the Kurds and talk about right of self-determination for them as a people, as long as this self-determination stops at the Iraqi border and does not affect Turkey. We implicate Iraq in potential acts of terrorism when bin Laden and most of the hijackers of 9-11 came from Saudia Arabia.

---

Iraq funds terrorism pure and simple and why should it matter whether it took part in the 9/11 attacks or not? Saddam slaughters his people, has fought two war on Iran with chemical weapons and refuses to abide by the ceasefire agreement. This last thing is Cassus Belli for the U.S.. He wants nuclear weapons and the U.S. doesn't want him to get it, plain and simple. The Kurds rights thing, it is a demand of Turkey, if the Kurds were to be allowed their own state that would destabilize their own state. You don't cause trouble to your good allies. I agree we should implicate the Saudis.

But everything has a time and place.

What you call posturing and hypocracy. I call it sound military strategy and I would expect nothing less from the United States of America.

None of those other nations require a 24 hour per day, 7 day per week combat-air-partol in their skies to keep them in line.

Further, my post stated quite clearly that I don't consider their actions with regard to 9/11 sufficient... I consider the violation of the ceasefire sufficient.

This has nothing to do, IMHO, with 9/11... it is simply something that should have been done a long time ago.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramage


If we are to remove this thorn, what of others? Where are we to stop? Has anyone called for an invasion of Libya recently? North Korea? Iran? The Philippines? We also seem quite content to leave Pakistan alone despite a military dictatorship just because the dictator is playing ball with us.

Iraq appears to be an excruciatingly low-priority target in the "War on Terrorism" (tm). That nation has not been connected with the 9-11 attacks, which I assumed would be our first priority as a nation. Instead we appear to be heading towards conflict with them because it is convenient at the moment. We decry Saddam for not having a democractic government while we back Pakistan, even though Musharraf has made a mockery of that nation's constitution. We applaud freedom for the Kurds and talk about right of self-determination for them as a people, as long as this self-determination stops at the Iraqi border and does not affect Turkey. We implicate Iraq in potential acts of terrorism when bin Laden and most of the hijackers of 9-11 came from Saudia Arabia.

These sound like the posturings of a hypocritical nation.

---

Forgot to add: we stop when there are no more thorns. The reason we HAVE so many thorns is because we lack the intestinal fortitude as a nation to do anything decisive.

Musharraf is a unique case. It seems very clear that he wants his nation to return to democracy. He overthrew a corrupt regime... condemning him would be hypocritical itself... the US "illegaly" overthrew our own lawful government once, after all. He certainly isn't bin Laden or Saddam.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramage


If we are to remove this thorn, what of others? Where are we to stop? Has anyone called for an invasion of Libya recently? North Korea? Iran? The Philippines? We also seem quite content to leave Pakistan alone despite a military dictatorship just because the dictator is playing ball with us.

Iraq appears to be an excruciatingly low-priority target in the "War on Terrorism" (tm). That nation has not been connected with the 9-11 attacks, which I assumed would be our first priority as a nation. Instead we appear to be heading towards conflict with them because it is convenient at the moment. We decry Saddam for not having a democractic government while we back Pakistan, even though Musharraf has made a mockery of that nation's constitution. We applaud freedom for the Kurds and talk about right of self-determination for them as a people, as long as this self-determination stops at the Iraqi border and does not affect Turkey. We implicate Iraq in potential acts of terrorism when bin Laden and most of the hijackers of 9-11 came from Saudia Arabia.

These sound like the posturings of a hypocritical nation.

---

Well then it appears the best reason to attack Iraq, as opposed to other nations, is that, like others, it has sponsored terrorism but, unlike other nations, we know we can take it without too big of a political fallout.

As for Musharraf "wanting to return his country to democracy", I would have you read about the 29 changes he made to his country's constitution, changes that give a permanent place to the military in their legislature as well as giving him the right to hold office for another five years without necessity of vote, among other democratic measures.

This is well beyond Realpolitik.

The US, it appears, is doing not even what is expedient, but merely convenient. We could attack other nations, but someone might get even more angry with us or we could lose an ally (even though that ally is of questionable legitimacy). This is not a moral tone nor is is the clear black-and-white, Good v. Evil tone that Mr. Bush signalled. Rather it is merely a case of keeping busy, of appearing to do something constructive, but actually having no firm direction, no firm conviction, and no actual goal.

So let's go ahead an attack Iraq. It certainly couldn't hurt, or so it appears. Who knows? Maybe we'll be able to place yet another regime in that country that we'll regret in 10-15 years.

Just because we aren't doing it NOW doesn't mean we aren't doing it, Ramage. Bear that in mind.

You see, one of the rare times Londo Mollari was RIGHT was when he said "Only a fool fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the KINGDOM of fools fights a war on twelve fronts."

I agree with you, First of Two. No one but a fool wants a multi-front war.

I am not advocating attacking multiple enemies. Instead I am trying to deduce any semblance of logic for attacking Iraq rather than any of the other potential targets. It would seem the others have a more direct connection to the stated goals of the War on Terrorism than does Iraq.

Ramage, here's another way to look at it. We have a limited amount of deployable resources we can use in the war on terrorism. A huge chunk of those resources are tied up in keeping Hussein on a short leash. As soon as we deal with him, we can free a lot of resources and have the capability to go after some of the nations that may have a more direct connection to the war on terrorism.

I agree with what Calguard said about being justified in attacking Iraq at any time in the last ten years. I spent three months in Saudi last summer, coming back less than two weeks before 9/11. Our planes were still getting missiles shot at them, as they have for years. Hussein has never abided by the cease-fire. It seems he'll do just as much as we let him get away with, and we've let him get away with too much.

Reasons for Ramage:

1. Of the folks on that list, Hussein is the most openly aggressive. As Sarge said, he's still shooting at our planes.

2. Of the folks on that list, Hussein is (accordiing to sources) the one most actively pursuing, and the closest to acquiring, nuclear weapons.

3. Hussein has as many ties to terrorism as the others on that list. He's one of the guys financing the Palestinian terror bombers families, as has been reported.

4. There's already an active resistance to his reign, as witnessed by the seizure of that embassy in Germany (It was Germany, wasn't it?)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by First of Two
Reasons for Ramage:

1. Of the folks on that list, Hussein is the most openly aggressive. As Sarge said, he's still shooting at our planes.

2. Of the folks on that list, Hussein is (accordiing to sources) the one most actively pursuing, and the closest to acquiring, nuclear weapons.

3. Hussein has as many ties to terrorism as the others on that list. He's one of the guys financing the Palestinian terror bombers families, as has been reported.

4. There's already an active resistance to his reign, as witnessed by the seizure of that embassy in Germany (It was Germany, wasn't it?)

---

Okay, these seems to be some points. Let's look at them.

Point 1 -- won't argue one way or the other. Our president also claims that others are also actively persuing our destruction. Seems we could argue this either way jsut based on information coming out of Washington.

Point 2 -- highly debatable. I saw five articles in the last month; two said that Iraq was close to building such weapons, two said they were not, and one said it is nearly impossible to tell based on current information. All of these articles were written by "experts". One "very close" article was written by one of the weapons inspectors. So was one of the "not close at all" articles. Again, little to choose from here.

Point 3 -- Yes, Hussein does have ties to terrorist. So did most of the other groups I mentioned. And several of the other groups seem much more active of late in their terrorism. Again, at best a wash.

Point 4 -- This one falls way down. Yes, there is opposition amongst some Iraqis to Hussein's rule, I grant you this, but it is neither organized nor cohesive. The group who took the embassy in Germany has never been heard of before. The Iraqi ex-pat communities in London, Paris and Berlin all denounced the actions of this group and quickly distanced themselves from the hostage taking. This is probably the second time (the other time being in Washington at the beginning of this month) that they ever spoke with anything like a unified voice. There is no single plan amongst them other than "we want Saddam out". Amongst the "opposition leaders" courted by Washington are two ex-members of Hussein's inner circle (neither of whom like each other), a dozen or so dissident clerics (including 2 with ties to Iran), four Kurds (two of whom actively call for a Kurdish state, INCLUDING the Kurds in Turkey, and only two of whom like each other), and several others of less obvious pedigrees. These men do not work together, do not like each other, have no common vision for Iraq-after-Hussein, and it is questionable as to whether any of them would even necessarily lean towards the US after being put into power.

If we want an nation with an organized and more or less unified internal and external resistance movement that speaks with one voice that calls out to be liberated, why not chose Tibet or Burma?

So we have three points for attacking Iraq, yet the same arguments could be used for attacking elsewhere, and one that does not really hold water.

Well, if that's what justifies it for you, then fine... what ever get sthe job done.

However I restate: MY position is that, even if Iraq was completely uninvolved in 9/11 we are still justified in resuming military action as they are in violation of the ceasefire agreement.

As for the regime which takes Saddam's place... who can say whether they will be our ally 10 years of 10 minutes from the day they gain power? The purpose of the exercise is not to give the US a puppet ally in the region, but to eliminate a dangerously unstable regime. Even if the regime which replaces it is hostile to the US as well, as long as they are reasonably rational they are better than Saddam.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramage
Well then it appears the best reason to attack Iraq, as opposed to other nations, is that, like others, it has sponsored terrorism but, unlike other nations, we know we can take it without too big of a political fallout.

As for Musharraf "wanting to return his country to democracy", I would have you read about the 29 changes he made to his country's constitution, changes that give a permanent place to the military in their legislature as well as giving him the right to hold office for another five years without necessity of vote, among other democratic measures.

This is well beyond Realpolitik.

The US, it appears, is doing not even what is expedient, but merely convenient. We could attack other nations, but someone might get even more angry with us or we could lose an ally (even though that ally is of questionable legitimacy). This is not a moral tone nor is is the clear black-and-white, Good v. Evil tone that Mr. Bush signalled. Rather it is merely a case of keeping busy, of appearing to do something constructive, but actually having no firm direction, no firm conviction, and no actual goal.

So let's go ahead an attack Iraq. It certainly couldn't hurt, or so it appears. Who knows? Maybe we'll be able to place yet another regime in that country that we'll regret in 10-15 years.

---

First things first. Iraq is old business that should have been disposed of years ago. Removing the threat of Iraq will free up many assets currently tied down in the Middle East... remember my post on how thinly the US Army and Marine Corps is currently streched?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramage
I agree with you, First of Two. No one but a fool wants a multi-front war.

I am not advocating attacking multiple enemies. Instead I am trying to deduce any semblance of logic for attacking Iraq rather than any of the other potential targets. It would seem the others have a more direct connection to the stated goals of the War on Terrorism than does Iraq.

---

[color-red]I may not be European, but maybe they have the right attitude about things, because they lived through two world wars. War is never, ever a good thing.

Violence should always be the last option.
[/COLOR]

Yes, Europe survived two world wars. Europe and her people survived those wars because AMERICAN boys went over there and bled and died after the enlightened Europeans appeased and apologized and wrung their hands and whimpered and wined and moaned and then SURRENDERED!

Your prosperity (including in Canada) has been built upon the bleached bones of my country men and I am sick to death of listening to the "cultural elite" and "more civilized" Europeans look down the end of their brown-coated noses at my country.

You've spent the last fifty years hiding behind American military might and sipping tea and telling yourselves that you are better than the boorish Americans. Horse shit! The only thing Europe has exported in the last fifty years is watered down socialism and some cheap wine. Or is that whine?

Last I heard, it wasn't three thousand of your citizens who were bombed,burned, asphyxiated, and crushed. So tell you what- if you want no part of what we feel we need to do in Iraq, go home to Mommy and cry.....

Let HER bail you out the next time you're getting your collective socialist !#@$# kicked.

You are correct on ONE thing. War is never, ever a good thing. But sometimes it's the only thing left to do. Stop cowering behind Chamberlain's skirts, drop you socialist agendas, and come join the REAL world.

There will still be dragons to slay when you do!